Poll:Americans want Democrats in power

Tom2

New member
That is one of the headlines in the Yahoo news tonight. Does anyone else notice that Yahoo news seems to lean to the sinister side? (Thats southpaw or counterclockwise direction, or the hand you wipe with, in sand people terms.) I sometimes get news there, as in human interest or science stories, but national or political stories seem to be left-hand picked to get my fired up! :mad:
 
Most large .coms are going to lean left(no offense Rich). A workforce of sandal wearing hippies assures that.

The fact that polls can be distorted to prove what ever you want has been covered ad nauseum.
 
Hey it's a fair fight;)
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Air America, Public TV, LA Times, NY Times, Yahoo, All of Hollywood, and College Professors



VS


Rush, NRA, and FOX news. Seems fair and balanced to me!:rolleyes: ;)
 
To be politically correct Tom...

To wipe with the left hand is a Muslim term/ideology. Islam isn't just in the Middle East, actually if you'd like I could give you more info about it. Just trying to broaden horizons here that's all don't mean to be prying into anyone's business.


Epyon
 
Poll:Americans want Democrats in power

'Cause they're stupid and think they have to go one way or the other. Probably just depends on which MSM outlet they watch. Can't we all just get along?
 
Why does reality hate America? :rolleyes:

Don't blame Yahoo. They're just reporting what comes off the wires. If you must call somebody biased, blame AP.
 
It hurts me to say this, but the Republicans have largely screwed the pooch. While I have no doubt it has been better for gun owners than if Kerry had been elected, the Repubs have run the government just like they have fought this war- with an eye on the polls, as opposed to the objective. Iraq should have been a punitive expedition, and nothing else. Flatten whatever and whoever needs flattened, and leave a note for the survivors saying "Y'all want might want to go about this a little differently, this time... we'll do it right next time" and then get the heck out.

The results would have been about the same. The warlords will still fight until a pack leader is selected, and then we'll still have to deal with them according to their actions. The only difference is that fewer fine young Americans would have died in the process.

Of course 'punitive missions' are un-PC in this enlightened age.

I find myself in an uncomfortable position. I will no longer support the Republicans, at least until they start acting like conservatives again. I cannot stomach the social and legislative platform of the Democrats. I will not support the Libertarians 'legalize drugs' insanity, nor will I waste a vote on a platform that has no hope of winning.

Maybe I'll just stay home and have a beer this year... and the next, and the next, etc. I probably haven't had one in five years; but 'elections' just might be the proper occasion.
 
It hurts me to say this, but the Republicans have largely screwed the pooch.
Truer words were never spoken. They bear little resemblance to true Conservatives....Ronnie Reagan; there was a Conservative with a Capital "C".
Rich
 
Ronnie Reagan; there was a Conservative with a Capital "C".
Rich

Amen, brother. If somebody could produce another Reagan or Harry Truman, I could vote for either one of them. They were men first; the party they belonged to was almost irrelevant. Perhaps that's what's missing today. All these goobers care more about political support and affiliation, than about the thing that really defines a man- doing the right thing, whether or not it's the popular thing. I think Bush actually has this quality; he is just boringly unrealistic about solutions to clear problems. Iraq and his early 'ideas' about illegal immigration are examples that come immediately to mind.
 
I think Bush actually has this quality
Agreed, and so many of us had such high hopes for him in 2000. History won't tell the truth for another decade, but I suspect we'll find his "fatal flaw" was classic hubris.
Rich
 
+1 INVSSGT and Rich

I don't believe in my lifetime I will see another Reagan quality president.
I defend GW because I believe he is doing what he believes is right. I don't agree with everything he does, but none of us will ever be in a position to make the types of decisions he has had to make the past 5 years. Much like no president in our history has had to make these decisions. The next president will have 7 1/2 years of history to base his decisions on. I would say that is leaps and bounds above the history GW has had to base his sometimes flawed decisions on.
 
Reagan? The guy who turned Class III into toys for wealthy men in exchange for a few scraps at the behest of the NRA and brought California the Mulford Act in 1967? The guy who couldn't resist signing tax increases whenever they flitted over his desk to the tune of the largest peacetime tax increase in American history?

The guy who supported the Brady Bill in 1991, -
I'm going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill. It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun
And the AWB in 1994, -
"listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [assault] weapons."

is someone I am supposed to believe cared about freedom? Sure, freedom for his armed bodyguards. ;) He was an expert populist, though.
 
Heist-
Some of us are not one-issue voters. I know it may sound like heresy, but I can respect a man who honestly differs on the issue of "Assault Weapons" so long as he understands the Second Amendment for the most part. Reagan did and I may have disagreed with him on the issue; but I respected him nonetheless.

Also, Ronnie Reagan as President was a far different politician than Ronnie Reagan as Governor. California's financial woes were not orchestrated by Reagan; they were orchestrated by the voters and have been, for the most part, supported by them ever since.
Rich
 
invssgt,
Thanks for injecting a little 'personal responsibility' into this thread.
Ultimately the responsibility for stories like this and poll results like these rests with the Republican party, not the media.
FWIW, I don't think the answer is to allow yourself to become disenfranchised, but rather work within the Republican party to bring them back to their core values. This Neo-conservatism (i.e. Authoritarianism) has proven disastrous for the reputation and marketability of the Republican party. Time to clean house, reclaim your party, and restore your image.

My $0.02
 
invssgt,
Thanks for injecting a little 'personal responsibility' into this thread.
Ultimately the responsibility for stories like this and poll results like these rests with the Republican party, not the media.

Thank you on the first, and you are correct on the second.

FWIW, I don't think the answer is to allow yourself to become disenfranchised, but rather work within the Republican party to bring them back to their core values.

Whoa. I don't know anybody who even uses that term, and wouldn't use it myself since it has been turned into the swan song of whiners. I ain't been 'desenfranchised' from nothin'. I am what I am, and the various, sundry and pointless political parties wil become what they will- based upon where they think the 1) media attention 2)votes, and 3) money are. Screw them all- the law of the jungle will eventually decide which ones survive.

All I can do is decide between the lesser of the evils, which everyone above eleven understands to be the definition of voting, anyway. In most cases, my choice will probably be for the party I'm bitching about today. If I bother to vote at all.

This Neo-conservatism (i.e. Authoritarianism) has proven disastrous for the reputation and marketability of the Republican party.

Slash, my complaint with the Repubs is that they aren't conservative enough. Just wanted to make sure you understood that...;)

Time to clean house, reclaim your party, and restore your image.
My $0.02

Reckon that applies to both major parties; I accept the point if you'll agree.
I sure hope the advice isn't coming from a supporter of the modern Democratic platform, 'cause that would sure as heck be "The pot calling the kettle black"- as my Mom used to say.
 
Slash, my complaint with the Repubs is that they aren't conservative enough. Just wanted to make sure you understood that...
Funny, that's my gripe too :) Big government and fiscal irresponsibility are not conservative ideals in my book.

Reckon that applies to both major parties; I accept the point if you'll agree.
Wholeheartedly.


I sure hope the advice isn't coming from a supporter of the modern Democratic platform, 'cause that would sure as heck be "The pot calling the kettle black"- as my Mom used to say.

Rest assured, I'm far from a supporter of their platform. Like most people, I agree with them on some issues and the Republicans on others.

In most cases, my choice will probably be for the party I'm bitching about today.
In that case, I suspect there's not much point in bitching about what they do. Just sayin'.
As for me, I'll vote for whichever candidate I like and respect when I can afford to. When I can't, I'll vote to keep either party from having sole control.
 
As for me, I'll vote for whichever candidate I like and respect when I can afford to. When I can't, I'll vote to keep either party from having sole control.
+1 on both counts. Neither party can be trusted with it.
 
Quote:
As for me, I'll vote for whichever candidate I like and respect when I can afford to. When I can't, I'll vote to keep either party from having sole control.
+1 on both counts. Neither party can be trusted with it.
+1 Whevever one party gets control the extremists come out of the woodwork.
 
Back
Top